All Habs-related Eklund rumours Part II
View Single Post
08-19-2010, 03:35 PM
Join Date: Apr 2007
Originally Posted by
Before disagreeing with this, I would like to understand your argument, because I just don't get it. Acquiring a player who isn't in his prime right now but should when you'll need it the most is just a type of long-term investment.
As a GM, one of the main difficulties faced is reconciling what you have on paper with what you can get out of them on the ice. That's why things like an overall "vision" of type of game you want to play, and an understanding of the type of players you will need to fulfill each role are crucial when you're in charge of an organization that is constantly in competition for unproven assets (draft picks) and hoping to develop them into pieces that fit within the framework of the "style" you hope to employ on the ice.
As such, making a bunch of deals (no matter if "big" or "small") that seem to simply improve specific individual components of your team on paper, without necessarily having an idea of how they're expected to work within the great unit they are joining and contribute to overall "improvement" of the team's performance (especially/hopefully longer term than simply 1 year at a time), and taking the mindset that "oh well, if it doesn't work out, we can always try something else next year" aligns very closely with my idea of the mentality of a manager mode video game player who enjoys putting pieces together and hitting "simulate season" to see how it turns out.
Now, I didn't claim that this is exactly what PG is doing (nor could I, having never discussed his motivations at length personally with him), but I can still connect enough dots to say that it seems similar, to me. Or, I should qualify that to say I see more similarities than I did under the Gainey "regime", which is what we're really talking about here, isn't it. Of course it's not going to seem the same to everyone, and thus our discussion of the topic. Also not commenting on which is more likely to be successful, because that involves crystal balls, and is an extension of the conversation, rather than the actual point that I think we're discussing.
Originally Posted by
If I'm stuck in a 15$/hour job for the rest of my life, and I decide to make a career change and get my bachelor degree, knowing full well that I'm going to be poorer for a few years but with the hope that I'm reap the benefits on the long term, would you also qualify this as a lack of long-term planing?
This has nothing to do with the mindset of someone assuming the role of a GM in an XBox hockey game, where every team is always open to trading possibilities as long as you offer enough "value", and thus you don't have to consider whether you're "stuck" with the results of a move for multiple years because of being unable to simply go back into the "transactions" page and make a quick trade to "fix" it.
But to address you're analogy, if you went back to get that Bachelor's degree in a dying field or one with extremely limited prospects for employment, then yes - you lacked long-term planning.
Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 08-19-2010 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ohashi_Jouzu